Monday, December 22, 2008

Who the Heck Is George Johnson?

A few weeks ago I wrote about Epigenetics at SEED. The article in SEED was written by a scientist who wants to change evolutionary theory in order to accommodate epigenetics. I pointed out that this was a poorly written article. One of the worst problems was the definition of epigenetics, which was broad enough to include the kitchen sink.

Along comes someone named George Johnson. He interprets Abbie's criticism of the science, and mine, as a rant against science journalism. Well, he's right, even though in this case it's science journalism being written by a scientist. Apparently science journalists (I assume George Johnson is one) are very sensitive about criticism from scientists. Apparently science journalists are very good at what they do ... how dare scientists criticize what they write about science!!!

Watch George Johnson make a fool of himself on this bloggingheads video with John Horgan. Johnson reads my name from the ERV posting but it seems he didn't bother to read my posting. If George Johnson has the courage to show up here I'll be happy to explain to him why this particular SEED article is bad. He's welcome to read all my other criticisms of science journalism and and attempt to defend the science journalists.

Pay close attention to Johnson's comments when he reads the passage from Abbie's blog. It's clear that he doesn't know what chromatin is and he doesn't know what epigenetics is. On the other hand, he is certain that Nicholas Wade, who writes about molecular biology, is a great science writer. How would George Johnson know this? Johnson may be able to tell whether Nicholas Wade is a good writer but he sure isn't in a position to judge whether he's a good science writer since the most important thing about science writing is accuracy and Johnson knows nothing about molecular biology.

This may be one of the biggest problems with science writers. They can't tell the difference between science and writing. And they don't like it when scientists point this out to them.

George Johnson is an award-winning science journalist, frequent writer for NYT and an author of several well-reviewed books :-)

Quick review of his articles (linked to on his web site http://sciwrite.org/glj/articles.html ) confirms that the guy NEVER knows the subject he is writing about. A total hack ... err, a classic science journalist.

Well, it is certainly hard for science journalists to satisfy all scientists when there is marked disagreement among scientists themselves on some topics, such as how far does epigenetics stray away from typically neodarwinian evolutionary explanations.

The neodarwinian framework we have received since the 1940's cares mostly about genes, and the ways by which they may increase their frequency in populations. From this perspective, the effects of the environment on organisms are a secondary topic and not part of any actual "evolutionary" explanation. Somehow, it is "biology", yet never "evolution". Some scientists think that is the way it should be: Others, like myself, disagree.

Regarding this, epigentics has introduced a lot of new exciting experiments and data on how much environmental change can directly affect both phenotype AND inheritance, without changes in DNA sequence. I think this indeed challenges traditional ways of evoutionary thinking. But I don't really care if someone like Larry disagrees, and says there is nothing new there. I shrug. It's not the end of the world. Maybe some day they will catch up.

However, it is hard to ignore and not chuckle a little whe you see how they then become all pissed and scandalized when science journalists pay attention to scientists who disagree with their pet opinions, sspecially if they question the the excellence and basic completeness of the 1940's neodarwinian framework as the best thing ever for evolutionary theory. Heresy!! End of the world!!!

They will the proceed to do us the favor of making complete fools of themselves by going into a generalized rant against science journalism, the decadence of civilization, etc etc, clearly portraying themselves as the only illuminated people, while everything around them is collapsing... it's really veey, very silly. Where does this come from? Anti-creationist paranoia, perhaps? It certainly is non-scientific, and kudos to George Johnson for sniffing it out (despite not being a scientist).

Take, for example, Larry's lame demand for a single, all-accepted definition of epigenetics. It seems he will refuse to take any role for epigenetics in evolution seriosuly until a unanimous defintion of epigenetics is achieved. This is pretty weird, taking into account he knows perfectly well the problems that are presented in definings words like "evolution", or even "gene". If we think like Larry, the role of genes in evolution cannot be seriously considered until we have a unanimous defintion of "gene" (still pending!). Larry's selective attitude against epiegentics does not comre from science, even if he may not know it. He's creating excuses. Very, very, bad for a scientist.

You are clearly annoyed by Larry's confrontational style, but I think he has a valid point.Epigenetic modifications (whatever the definition) can change the way genes are expressed, but ultimately heritable differences in epigenetic strategies are encoded in the DNA.Since the modern synthesis only considers the expressed fitness effects of different alleles, epigenetics is simply absorbed by it. I fully agree that this is a very exciting research field, but it certainly does not require any change in the modern synthesis.

In my opinion, the boom of epigenetics has simply added some empirical pressure for a long past-due revision of evolutionary theory, since neodarwinism has been all too focused on genes (and adaptationism) for too long.

In other words, epigenetics helps, but is not necessary to be able to realize that the neodarwinian focus is too narrow to be an "essentially complete" framework for explaining evolution. Some pockets of evolutionary thinking interspersed here an there in the world have reazlized this long time before epigenetics (in fact, neodarwinian "hegemony" has never been complete, with some scientists always remaining unconvinced). You have all kinds of different degrees of heterodoxy. Jablonka herself is pretty much typically adaptationist. Gould himself was certainly under the imopression taht the theoretical framework is improvable, at least beyond adaptainims and Dawkins-style gentic reductionism.

Revolution? I don't know, and honestly, I don't care... we can all live together having different opinions. What seems funny to me are the paranoid reactions of some. It's OK to be confrontational, but to be apocalyptic is a bit ridiculous, isn't it.

By the way, since you say that "ultimately heritable differences in epigenetic strategies are encoded in the DNA", I'd love it for you to explain what do you mean by "encoded". I assume you are speaking only metaphorically?

Considering the fact George has never commented at ERV or sent me an email, and has instead chosen to Bill-Dembski-notpologize on the Bloggingheads forum, I doubt he will show up here. And I doubt he gives a crap about epigenetics.

"I'd love it for you to explain what do you mean by "encoded". I assume you are speaking only metaphorically?"

I meant to say that epigenetic modifications are performed by enzymes (e.g. DNA methyltransferase), and their genes and target sites can be found in the DNA.I am sorry if that was unclear, I guess I am one of the scientists that can´t write, haha.

George Johnson has a B.A. in Journalism with a minor in English, University of New Mexico (1975). Whenever he speaks about science, he shows clearly that he has only a very shallow understanding of any of it.

Eva Jablonka is succeeding in given epigenetics a stinking name, and it was a problematical catch-all term to begin with. Nowadays it mostly seems to refer to any interaction at the molecular level that is not specified otherwise.

One of the causes of scepsis about that Altenberg conference was Jablonka attending. Her book: Evolution in Four Dimensions was far from concisely argued (at least, so I thought, see my book review in Ethology 113 2007 730-732DOI 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01330.x)

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.